"Ahmad's provocative remarks have increasingly isolated their country"

Ya think!

Posted by: champ at January 13, 2007 6:12 PM

I hope this is true. I have heard the younger Iranians can't stand him.

Posted by: Gramfan at January 13, 2007 6:34 PM

Maybe Bush's policies are working...

Posted by: payingattention at January 13, 2007 6:37 PM

l think they are not ready for an all out nuclear attack from the US/Israel. they are more sneaky, dont want their intentions known unlike the little monkey man from iran, he lets you know exactly how he feels about you. either way they arer all dangerous.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at January 13, 2007 6:51 PM

And I say SCREW iSLAM!!!

Let's get our troops out.. or occupy the areas that hold the oil instead of the entire iraq.

Then we raid iran every now and then.

Let the shiats and the sunnys duke it out without us there to hold them apart. The less mofoes world-wide the better for us.

The Left is giving us the perfect figleaf to hurry up on out of there. That insolent 'president' Malarky of Iraq will find out the God he serves when we no longer keep his stank *donkey* safe.

Malarky thinks he can keep telling our tropps what to do. I am sick and tired of backing a guy who thinks our troops are his 'handlangers'.. his serfs. Where the hell does he comne OFF with that!!!???

If I were an American General I'd be fuming.. I'd storm into the White House and I'd yell at Bush and Condi how dare they allow this Malarki-donkey to boss around the AMERICAN MILITARY!!

Let's see what happens to Malarki when we LEAVE!! His behind will get the saddam treatment courtesy of the suny-boys.

And then a bunch of shits.. Sorry I meant to say shiats.. will go after the sunnys and round and round.. :-)

Maybe we'll even get to see some of it on Youtube.

This Bush is way too beholden to the Sowdis and our military pays the price! They're not even allowed to fight as they need to!!

The Dhimmicrats are for getting out for all the wrong reasons, but I hope they succeed. I do think we should occupy the oil fields and recover our money.

Germany paid reparations - especially after WW1 so why can't Iraq be made to pay??!!

AND WE GET TO WATCH THEM DECIMATE ONE ANOTHER :-)

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 13, 2007 7:09 PM

Unless the hairy little scumbag says he’s backing down himself and apologises to Israel publicly I would not take a word they say as true. Even then I might want him to personally shovel forty tons of concrete into that bloody well on live television.

But saying that. I never seem to come across reports of ordinary Iranians banging on about world domination. Everything I have seen has looked liked warped American cop shows with Niqab clad black widows abseiling down tall buildings or firing their pistols from behind car doors as if a car window is going to stop a 5.56mm. Other threatening propaganda videos have looked like nefarious outtakes from the Life Aquatic, only with harpoons. Not to mention that evil flying boat thing that really must be scaring the crap out of Admirals the world over.

Maybe the average Iranian youngster bombed out on crack is thinking as he drives to the plastic surgeon for a nose job that nuking the West might not be a good idea.

Posted by: Mert at January 13, 2007 7:15 PM

This should not distract or be used as an excuse to do nothing. Those who wish nothing to be done include those who, like Lt. Gen. Odom (ret'd.) think that the "only way" to get Iran to disarm is to force Israel to also give up its nuclear weapons, so that Iran "will follow suit," and that tells you all you need to know about Lt. Gen. Odom, ret'd. and his sinister views of Israel and its right to continue to be able to defend itself and to exist.

But there is also the siren-song sung by those who insist that if no measures are taken, then within Iran a better regime will come to power. And so what? Had the Shah acquired nuclear weapons -- and he certainly wanted to -- then the Khomeini regime would have inherited those weapons. And even if the Shah's son were somehow to take over from those now running the Islamic Republic, given the makeup of the population in Iran, who can say that the Shah's son would not be followed by a regime similar to the one now in power?

One has to plan for the future, the long future. No Muslim country can be permitted to acquire weapons of mass destruction or, where a country -- i.e. Pakistan -- has managed to do,, with the collaboration of some Westerners and the criminal negligence of several Western, then all measures must be taken to ensure that that country lacks the ability to deliver that weaponry, and that constant pressure is put on that country to put those weapons, for "permanent safekeeping," into the hands of a powerful, insistent, and if necessary most ferocious non-Muslin power.

It is not only a question of the current regime, but of future regimes in Iran. And it is not only a question of regimes but of groups and groupuscules and individuals who, inspired by their faith, might lay their hands on such weaponry or help other groups to do so. That is the problem.

And that is why those reports of some dissension within the ranks may be of interest, but cannot be allowed to prevent sensible action against that nuclear project itself, however tenuous one may guess or know that a particular unsavory regime is in power.

The existence or possession of the weapons, by a state populated by Muslims, whatever the regime in question, is what must not be forgotten.

Posted by: Hugh at January 13, 2007 7:21 PM

You’ve definitely got to watch out for those “groupuscules”.

But if this is true and we have no real evidence either way then we should wait. We have some time to wait anyway, Israel can’t really carry an attack to multiple sites in Iran on its own and America is not going to bomb Iran next week.

We have time yet.

Posted by: Mert at January 13, 2007 7:30 PM

In my opinion, Ahmedinejad, and his commitment to ‘Fast Jihad’, are strategic assets of the West. It is likely that members of Iran's inner circle have the same feeling.

Posted by: pez at January 13, 2007 8:19 PM

The 'Times' of London reported a few days ago that Israel is secretly planning nuclear attacks on Iran if all other means of stopping Mr Dinner Jacket fail (and I fervently hope this report is true). Iran's leaders will most certainly have read this report, or at least a translation of it.

I can well imagine that some of the slightly less nutty ones might not feel quite ready for their 72 virgins just yet. But will they actually try to stop their own president....?

Somehow, I can't quite see it.

Posted by: enemyofislam at January 13, 2007 8:40 PM

Our problem is we don't know where the most important facilities are, we know where the bedrock has copper ore, where the earthquake faultlines run northeasterly from the straits, and of course, near the Pakistan border would be convenient for Dr. Khan. The May, 1981, National Geographixc I was tossing in teh recycle bin the other day showed Pakistan's new reactor and pondered if they might be building a nuclear weapon as well. Nah.

Posted by: Catawhumpus at January 13, 2007 10:04 PM

Interesting stuff:

Our problem is we don't know where the most important facilities are, we know where the bedrock has copper ore, where the earthquake faultlines run northeasterly from the straits, and of course, near the Pakistan border would be convenient for Dr. Khan.

I still don;t understand why this Khan hasn't been assassinated yet. He stole Nuclear secrets from Germany and Holland. Of course those two countries - I am ashamed to say - have completely neutered their Secret Services to the point where they no longer exist.

This ain't post-WW2 anymore.

But the US or Israel could and should off this skunk. Both for payback and as warning to others. On this this thought.. doesn't India have a Secret Service?

The May, 1981, National Geographixc I was tossing in teh recycle bin the other day showed Pakistan's new reactor and pondered if they might be building a nuclear weapon as well. Nah.

You may want to keep that National Geographic! Scan it in and put it up on a blog. Great way to illustrate your point! And qwe don't need to wonder what iran is building. We KNOW what they are doing. They say so every day.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 13, 2007 10:31 PM

Before we get all excited about the reported growing impatience of the Iranian "street" with its mad mullah leaders, a cautionary note from the New York Times -- yes, it!-- might be well taken.

In an article published on August 6, titled "Iranian 101: A Lesson for Americans, The Fine Art of Hiding What You Mean to Say," writer Michael Slackman observes in excruciatingly delicate language that what Iranians do, in fact, is lie. Constantly, and unashamedly.

Some excerpts:

"IT is certainly unfair to accuse all Iranians of being liars. The label is judgmental and reeks of stereotype. The more appropriate way to phrase the Iranian view toward honesty, the way many Iranians themselves describe it, is to say that being direct and telling the truth are not prized principles in Iran."

"Often, just the opposite is true. People are expected to give false praise and insincere promise. They are expected to tell you what you want to hear to avoid conflict, or to offer hope when there is none.

There is a social principle in Iran called taarof, a concept that describes the practice of insincerity -- of inviting people to dinner when you don't really want their company, for example. Iranians understand such practices as manners and are not offended by them."

"Muhammad Atrianfar, publisher of the reform-minded daily newspaper Shargh, said Iranians find Americans easy to deal with because they are straightforward. That, he implied, could give Iranians an advantage in any negotiations. But for Americans to understand Iranians, he said, they must recognize that with Iranians, ''the mind thinks something, the heart feels something else, the tongue says something else, and manners do something else.
''It doesn't mean people are lying,'' he said. ''They are just dealing with you with a different character.''"

Once again Islam, like Humpty Dumpty, redefines simple concepts: "lying" is not intentionally telling falsehoods, but rather "dealing with you with a different character."

Given this, it is equally likely that the Iranian "street" is realizing that the Islam, more and more Islam, that they freely elected is backfiring in their faces; that their fearless leader shows no interest in providing them with heatproof hijabs and military hardened manteaux,
and that their series of tender novels about lipstick and Lolita in Tehran is not having its desired effect, but is meeting with American indifference.

In other words, direct ones: the Iranian population could simply once again be feeding us taarof. Lying, now that the Islamic fat is nearing the fire.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at January 13, 2007 10:41 PM

Ahmedinejad said something a while back that makes me feel that he’s serious. He stated that he doesn’t get worried when the Americans send ships to the Gulf, but he would worry if they left. I think he’s got big plans.

Posted by: pez at January 13, 2007 11:10 PM

Some thoughts on Iraq...

Let'em Fight...America the Referee

My views are evolving. I read an article in the Wallstreet Journal last week. I found the fact that we are fighting all sides and yet have allies on all sides - except from among Al Qaeda - that the situation can be flipped to our advantage and I think there may be an effective way to fight this war.

Here it is in a nutshell...

1. Permit the civil war - Like the Iran-Iraq war of the 80s - let the Shiites and Sunnis fight their civil war - Let America even "facilitate it" (in an American way) - Help each side really hurt the other side's more monstrous visage.

2. Political Judo - Help the civil war happen in a positive way. The U.S. should act as a referee as America merely fights "contextually" on and for both sides by minimizing, as best we can, both sides ability to ethnically cleanse before the demographics can vacate their homes. Keep the Turks, Jordanians, and Syrians out...Vis. Help the Shiites destroy the Sunni nationalists, the Baathists and the Wahhabi/Al Qaeda Sunni terrorists. Help the Sunnis go after the Iranian sponsored Shiites - Sadr and other Iraqi political-religious fascists. Civilians will naturally suffer; encourage both sides that when they have had enough we would be happy to help them but only when their hatred has been notably exhausted.

3. Energy as primary deliverable - Manage the flow of oil through the gulf - priority on keeping oil lanes open. Use troops to protect oil assets in Iraq. Let the Iraqis generate cash to fund their civil war and America will charge for being the referee. Let their oil fund our presence and value add to the situation.

4. Neutralize Iran - Look for an excuse to go after Iran and when the next act of war perpetrated (IEDs with Iranian fingerprints or Iraqi base weapons agents and trainers), start hitting Iran's military infrastructure - use the U.S. Navy and Airforce from the Gulf...leading eventually to the destruction of Iran's nuclear capabilities.

5. Leader - As soon as a despot arises in Iraq that will commit to (1) staying away from WMD - trust but verify - or rather just verify- and (2) not interfering in America's energy interests (no Kuwait invasion or Kurdish land grab) - We support the thug...I mean, we support that leader.

That Kansas Guy.

Posted by: That Kansas Guy at January 13, 2007 11:52 PM

Kansas Guy; Sounds like a plan. But since our forces are so ‘stretched’ might it not make sense to use our new Ethiopian ally to provide security for the oil-fields? I’m sure that they could use the money back home, where the per capita income is only $900, and they have a population of over twice that of Iraq.

If the Ethiopians were to decide to not go back to Africa when the smoke clears, we could have the United Nations send them a letter and tell them to leave, or at least share the oil revenues with their old, slave-trading masters.

Posted by: pez at January 14, 2007 12:45 AM

To name the enemy would be a start. Until the people can come forward with the name, say it, speak about it without reseveration, and be direct and honest in all that is said, we will continue to fail in making progess against the evil idea.

That enemy is islam.

Remove islam, and the world becomes safer, much safer for all. If those who follow it want to have a permanent future in the world, islam must be rejected.

Where would Iraq be if islam was removed from the law, and people of that country? To reject this means one thing, the blood of many, many more will flow.

Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at January 14, 2007 2:10 AM

That Kansas Guy.
Posted by: That Kansas Guy

Kansas Guy.. you need to work in the White House! I've been thinking along those same lines but I can't say it as well and as planned-out and as implementable as you have.

This plan of yours is eminently doable.

Fuggedabout da neo"cons". Your plan gives the Iraqis a fair shot at Democracy - IF they truly want it. It will be up to them to fight/negotiate for it.

What you suggest should have been thought of by both the ISG *AND* the White House. It is SO logical.

I can only think of ONE reason they haven't come up with something similar to what you laid out: They are PAID OFF by the Sowdis.

They are blinded by the GOLD.

Posted by: MeanieMo at January 14, 2007 2:45 AM

The only way it can be believed that Iranians hate the regime is when they prove it by apostatizing in droves. I once heard that many secretly have - converting to Zoroastrianism, but OTOH, many still maintain an artificial distinction between the regime and Islam. If a majority of Iranians fall in the latter category, confrontation with Iran is unavoidable.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at January 14, 2007 2:46 AM

Iran's trying to extort Germany over a release of a prisoner who got lost during a fishing trip and entered Iranian waters in November 2005 in exchange for a Iranian state terrorist, who is recently serving a live sentence.
http://civoc.com/society/?p=141

Posted by: Arnie at January 14, 2007 6:40 AM

Let's not forget history. The CIA originally installed the Shah and his bloody regime that preceded the Ayatollah's take over in 1979:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz5AdRVjSIE&mode=related&search=

But perhaps the same method can be used to topple the present government there?

Posted by: seville844 at January 14, 2007 9:06 AM

Removing Ineedajob will only change how Iran vocalizes itself. It isn't going to change it's overall policy. I don't see Iran suddenly loving America just because Ineedajob might exit stage left. Need we remind ourselves it was the "moderates" who advanced their Nuclear program, despite all the international agreements those same said "moderates" signed?

The MSM has a love for the word "moderate". You can ban-die it about to cover anyone to appear reasonable. The term "moderate" is only relative within the context of it's use. Moderate as compared to what?

It was the "moderates" in Iran who actually took control of the Country and started the death to America rant.

The Mullahs know Ineedajobs pronouncements are pushing Iran into a conflict it cannot win at the present time. Better to be silent and thought of being Evil(something the MSM will jump all over), Than speak and remove all doubt. (the MSM will fill you up with ifs, ands and buts).

If the MSM cannot tell us about Abbas recent speech calling for Fatah and Hammas to join together to kill Israelis. Then what hope does the average citizen have of ever understanding the situation at hand.

Moderate voices in Iran are not reason enough to sleep well at night. No matter how much SOMONIC the MSM offers.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 14, 2007 9:34 AM

Kansas Guy - great post, some very sound ideas. I would stand behind those points, but unfortunately Congress doesn't have the cojones to do so.

Where are you located? I was born and raised in the "Queen of the Marmaton Valley" (Fort Scott), and lived there for 29 years before making my way south. My parents, and my wife's, are both still living there.

Posted by: EricInTexas at January 14, 2007 10:25 AM

The presidents plan for Iraq sounds just right to me.
This "surge" is really nothing more than replacing the Forces withdrawn prior to the November elections. Of course, the MSM never made the correlation between the rise in violence and our Elections. It was obvious to anyone with open eyes that a rise in violence would have a direct impact upon it. But then the MSM has it's own agenda

The US forces will be used to track down the Sunnis. They are the ones who technically declared war on us. Killing a bunch of our "Friends" allies should send a message to them.

The US will use the Iraqi Army to disband the Shi'a Militias. With our help. We will be forcing them to kill each other before we need to do it. It will also give a strong signal to Iran that their meddling will no longer be tolerated. The proof will be evident on the battlefield.

I do not find it ironic that the Iranians sing a slightly different tune knowing what units are being "surged" into Iraq.

The 82nd. Airborne and the 3rd.ID are probably 2 of the best and most battled tested Divisions in the Army. outside the 10th Mountain Division.

The best use of these units is not knocking on doors. I would think the Iranians know this more than most.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at January 14, 2007 10:26 AM

OK, time for a sanity check.
Step one: Who is really running Iran? Any answer that doesn't give the Mullahs veto power or final agreement isn't real.
Step two: How does a person get on the ballot for the top jobs such as "President"? (Hint: See Step one.)

Now that we understand the Rules of the Game; would anyone care to speculate on the chances of those young 20- or 30-somethings in the street having any say when it comes to the all-important nominating process? Snow ball's chance in the Congo comes to mind.

Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at January 14, 2007 1:06 PM

I agree completely, the hairy arsed short one is only ever a puppet of the Mullahs. But do we know what his mesmerising speech to the UN followed by incessant America baiting as done to his psyche in the meantime?

The hairy arsed short one is obviously a Nutter, either that or he’s a great actor. Maybe the Mullahs wanted us to believe that he is side show Bob with half the intelligence, maybe his BS about a great leader living down a well is meant to draw us in.

But maybe they have created a monster, and America bolstering its forces as got the Mullahs second guessing their own approach.

It doesn’t look like many Muslim countries are going to rise up when the Mahdi appears out of his well. Maybe in their heart they know that is bollocks and not worth dying for?

Posted by: Mert at January 14, 2007 3:26 PM

Infidel Pride

converting to Zoroastrianism

I seriously doubt that apostatizing Muslims would covert to fire-worship in any sizable quantity. What is more likely is that they would secretly convert to Baha'i, wherein they could pretty much continue to hold themselves out as Muslims, but incorporate tenets from both Zoroastrianism and (Shi'a) Islam, as well as other faiths and Baha'i itself.

Posted by: Greek Fire at January 14, 2007 8:32 PM

Borat And Iranian President A TV Spoof?

http://www.thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?t=492

Posted by: Mike_W at January 15, 2007 3:47 AM